NHL on TSN Quiz: Potential Hall of Fame Inductees For 2013

Well, except the rules for the draft haven't changed at all. No one has pulled that "Lindros" trick since.

The big issue is how it followed Lindros his whole career. The Philly situation was just the final nail in the coffin. I agree Clarke is a jerk, but the comments he continually made about Lindros during that holdout has to hold some water. They can't all be inaccurate. Lindros was 27 at this time. He was not 18 anymore and his parents continued to meddle in his affairs.

That would matter a lot less if he had a better career. Yeah he was dominant - when he played. That's the key there, something always had to give with Lindros. He was so careless on the ice that he hurt his team by being out all the time. I am sure most of us can agree the things he did after the year 2000 - when he was 27 - are miniscule. Basically you are judging a player for what he did up until the age of 27. There aren't a lot of players in NHL history who would have gotten into the HHOF playing only until 27.

And what does he do in that time? He has many injury plagued seasons. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things he might have a maximum of 4 elite seasons. No more. Those would be 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999. All years but 1995 he missed some time as well, and these were his BEST years.

The other years are 1993 (rookie and far behind the NHL elite), 1997 (missed too much time and had a terrible Cup final), 1998 (again, missed to much time and didn't win a Gold medal) and 2000 (missed almost 30 games).

It isn't as if he was Mario Lemieux and could win a scoring title by playing 60 games. Or Jagr for that matter. Jagr won a scoring title in 2000 by playing 63 games. Lindros played that many games in 1998 and had 71 points.

He was his own worst enemy on and off the ice and this is why he's still waiting to get in. I can make a case for him to get inducted and to be left out because to be honest there are strong cases to be made on either side.

lindros is a hero, like spartacus. he fought for the freedoms later enjoyed by yashin, heatley, comrie, pronger, bure, and berard. extra points for being a pioneer, that courageous soul.

Lindros was 18th in scoring in 2002, but by then, he was something of a perimeter player who wasn't providing much but scoring. He certainly wasn't the bull in a china shop Lindros that everyone remembers.

Yes, Lindros had clearly changed and was not the same ultra aggressive player that he was before. I would certainly not say he was a perimeter player who wasn't providing much scoring though. Top ten in goals and one of the top scorers at even strength are not hallmarks of a perimeter player, and Lindros did still mix it up physically.

Finishing 18th in scoring, including top ten in per game scoring, is still a quality year, particularly once Europeans emerged in the NHL. I don't see how the failure of a poor Rangers team to make the playoffs is relevant. I also have a different take on Lindros at the 2002 Olympics. He took on a low profile role on the fourth line and performed adequately, basically shoving his ego aside.

Would Joe Thornton have done any worse in the Olympics than Lindros? That's the thing right there, he could have been left off that team and no one would have made a fuss about it. He was 28 in the 2001-'02 season and everyone knew he was no longer an elite player anymore. The role he played on the Olympics is a testament to how far he dropped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

Lindros was 18th in scoring in 2002, but by then, he was something of a perimeter player who wasn't providing much but scoring. He certainly wasn't the bull in a china shop Lindros that everyone remembers.

Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123

Take aside the fact that he always could have done more, he did lead the entire NHL in playoff scoring in 97, final aside, so let's skip the Dionne playoff comps.

As well 57 in 53 during his time in the NHL playoffs ( 95-07 span) which includes his last 5 games when he was beyond done and playing less than 10MPG puts him 5th in Playoff PPG (minumum of 35 games over that time period)

Dionne had 49 points in 45 games. Lindros had 57 points in 53 games. Very similar statistically and if you throw in the fact that Lindros had teams who should have done more while Dionne was never on a Cup contender it looks even closer. That 1997 run was great - for three rounds. The performance in the final soured all the good that was done before. Let's face one thing here, Lindros does not have a good playoff portfolio at all. This is something that rarely gets brought up in these debates but his playoff resume hurts him.

Quote:

Once again 18th in scoring in a 30 team league is pretty darn good and as you rightly say he had dropped quite a bit but that was just one of his excellent seasons and now one of his 4 great or elite ones.

His 73 points in 72 games were only 4 players scored more than 80 points also tells us how close he was to the elite that year instead of your description.

As for that 02 NYR team not making the playoffs, look at it's makeup and tell me that Lindros was really the problem there.

I wouldn't call it an excellent season either. 2002 was one of those years where the forwards were weak. One 50 goal scorer, no 100 point men. Lindros was still 18th in scoring in a weak offensive year. Had it been the year on either side of it he is around top 30. Let's also take into account Miro Satan had as many points as him and Craig Conroy had more. That isn't a season for the ages and is something that shows just how far the mighty had fallen.

Dionne had 49 points in 45 games. Lindros had 57 points in 53 games. Very similar statistically and if you throw in the fact that Lindros had teams who should have done more while Dionne was never on a Cup contender it looks even closer. That 1997 run was great - for three rounds. The performance in the final soured all the good that was done before. Let's face one thing here, Lindros does not have a good playoff portfolio at all. This is something that rarely gets brought up in these debates but his playoff resume hurts him.

Did you even look at the ranking of PPG guys in the playoffs during Eric's career?

When does being 5th hurt his resume?

Sure he could have a larger body of work but I don't hear you saying that Marty St. Louis playoff resume hurts him either.

PPG in playoffs in the late 70s'early 80's is one thing but during Lindros time it's a hard thing to do.

Quote:

I wouldn't call it an excellent season either. 2002 was one of those years where the forwards were weak. One 50 goal scorer, no 100 point men. Lindros was still 18th in scoring in a weak offensive year. Had it been the year on either side of it he is around top 30. Let's also take into account Miro Satan had as many points as him and Craig Conroy had more. That isn't a season for the ages and is something that shows just how far the mighty had fallen.

Given the context of the year it is an excellent season.

Your focus on his off ice stuff is really clouding your judgements and arguments here on what he did on the ice.

we don't judge Wayne by not waiting to get drafted, on not winning a cup outside of Edmonton, of not being a great plus minus guy later in his career (and having less impact on his teams winning than we really care to admit sometimes) we judge him mainly on his accomplishments like we should all players.

Unfortunately some tend to focus on what some players could have been instead of what they were and they pull it out inconsistently (ie focus on it for some players but not others).

Plain and simple any guy that was considered one of the top players over a 10 year stretch makes my HHOF draft antics aside.

I don't think so. The draft system is obviously not as bad as slavery. That said, it would not be allowed in other businesses and industries because it is incompatible with the rights of employees. Imagine BMW, VW, Chrysler, Ford etc sticking together and introducing a "draft" to tell people who are seeking employment they can only work for a certain company if they want to get to get into the car industry. That's basically what the NHL is doing.
I don't know why sports leagues are treated as an exception in North America, but an exception it is. If we're talking about free agency and about freedom of movement for workers, why is it a stretch to talk of freedom?

I hope not. Man, we'd really be lowering the bar if Andreychuk and Housley get in - anytime. Thankfully they didn't play that long ago so we all remember them. I'm getting nervous about Housley though. It was almost like with Nieuwendyk when he got in. The media clings to a name over and over and everybody repeats it to the point where it sounds right all of the sudden. Housley just might be one of those guys.

If I am picking the 4 names next year it would be Chelios, Niedermayer, Blake and Makarov. The first two will get in for sure. In my mind Blake had every bit as good a career as Niedermayer but no one seems to remember that anymore. I chose Makarov because I'd put him in not because I think the committee will do it.

Lindros is a guy that needs more time to analyze. Honestly, he's a player where we have to sit back and let it simmer for a few years until we either appreciate what he accomplished and forget his drama or not. They HHOF should have done that with Nieuwendyk to be honest.

I don't think so. The draft system is obviously not as bad as slavery. That said, it would not be allowed in other businesses and industries because it is incompatible with the rights of employees. Imagine BMW, VW, Chrysler, Ford etc sticking together and introducing a "draft" to tell people who are seeking employment they can only work for a certain company if they want to get to get into the car industry. That's basically what the NHL is doing.
I don't know why sports leagues are treated as an exception in North America, but an exception it is. If we're talking about free agency and about freedom of movement for workers, why is it a stretch to talk of freedom?

The NHL draft only governs the NHL, not the entire hockey world. No player is free to choose their NHL team upon entering the league, but they are free to play in other hockey leagues. Lindros still played hockey during his age 18 season.

It's not uncommon for entry-level workers to a company to work in a location not of their choosing. When my grandmother became a nurse in Ontario, she was assigned to a town in Northern Ontario for her first two years. Slavery? No, just the standard path for entry-level nurses in the province of Ontario.

The NHL draft only governs the NHL, not the entire hockey world. No player is free to choose their NHL team upon entering the league, but they are free to play in other hockey leagues.

The NHL has a monopoly on elite level hockey in North America, that's limitation enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass

It's not uncommon for entry-level workers to a company to work in a location not of their choosing.

That compares to the assignment of NHL players to farm clubs. I don't have an issue with that. Your example is not comparable to the Entry Draft however. A valid comparison would be an "Entry Draft" held by the 30 top car manufacturers in North America assigning entry-level workers to certain manufacturers. Worker A can only work for Ford, Worker B can only work for GM and so on. Does that sound legal to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass

When my grandmother became a nurse in Ontario, she was assigned to a town in Northern Ontario for her first two years.

The preservation of the health care system is in the public interest. Like all young men in my country I was obliged to serve either in the army (for 6 months) or in a social service provider (for 9 months). I had to work in a nursing home and even though it wasn't my choice to serve at all in the first place, I accept that the state can force you to do so for the common good of the people. But only the state (monopoly on the use of force), with private enterprises (like the NHL) it's a different matter. Public interest? The NHL Entry Draft only serves the business interests of NHL franchises and maybe (just maybe) the interests of North American hockey fans. That's not enough to deny employees their rights/freedoms (and we're talking about rights/freedoms here for they are accepted and observed as such in other business and industries).

The NHL has a monopoly on elite level hockey in North America, that's limitation enough.

That compares to the assignment of NHL players to farm clubs. I don't have an issue with that. Your example is not comparable to the Entry Draft however. A valid comparison would be an "Entry Draft" held by the 30 top car manufacturers in North America assigning entry-level workers to certain manufacturers. Worker A can only work for Ford, Worker B can only work for GM and so on. Does that sound legal to you?

The preservation of the health care system is in the public interest. Like all young men in my country I was obliged to serve either in the army (for 6 months) or in a social service provider (for 9 months). I had to work in a nursing home and even though it wasn't my choice to serve at all in the first place, I accept that the state can force you to do so for the common good of the people. But only the state (monopoly on the use of force), with private enterprises (like the NHL) it's a different matter. Public interest? The NHL Entry Draft only serves the business interests of NHL franchises and maybe (just maybe) the interests of North American hockey fans. That's not enough to deny employees their rights/freedoms (and we're talking about rights/freedoms here for they are accepted and observed as such in other business and industries).

I have explicitly stated that it's not slavery we're talking about.

I don't think it's accurate to compare individual NHL clubs to competitors such as GM and Ford. NHL clubs are business partners first and competitors second. The league as a whole has always had the final say on the player roster of individual clubs. We can go back to 1920 when the NHL assigned star Ottawa defenceman Sprague Cleghorn to Hamilton, because the Ottawa club was too strong and it was in the best interests of the league to spread out the talent.

The NHL as an organization has collectively bargained with the players association that players who enter the league are not free to choose the NHL club for whom they play. They gain that right after a certain amount of time. This is analogous to a player being assigned to a different office upon joining a firm. If the player doesn't.like it they are free to play in another league. If they simply must play in an elite-level league in North America they are free to line up some investors and arenas and start their own elite-level league in North America.There is no legal reason for the NHL to hold a monopoly in this area.

I don't think it's accurate to compare individual NHL clubs to competitors such as GM and Ford. NHL clubs are business partners first and competitors second. The league as a whole has always had the final say on the player roster of individual clubs.

Just like GM, Ford etc are business partners in my scenario where they set up an "Entry Draft" for new workers. Does that make it legal in your eyes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass

The NHL as an organization has collectively bargained with the players association that players who enter the league are not free to choose the NHL club for whom they play. They gain that right after a certain amount of time. This is analogous to a player being assigned to a different office upon joining a firm.

Except that the NHL is not a firm but a joint venture between independent clubs=firms. Players are not assigned to different offices of one firm in the NHL Entry Draft, they are assigned to different firms.

Would Joe Thornton have done any worse in the Olympics than Lindros? That's the thing right there, he could have been left off that team and no one would have made a fuss about it. He was 28 in the 2001-'02 season and everyone knew he was no longer an elite player anymore. The role he played on the Olympics is a testament to how far he dropped.

I would say that Thornton would have performed at roughly the same level, not that it matters. Lindros was neither great or terrible at the Olympics that year, it was only a small part of his season but it did show some potential growth as he accepted a small role on a team he had captained four years earlier. Obviously Lindros was worse in 2002, no person would argue that. He still had a good season though, and ignoring that season when assessing his legacy as a player is erroneous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math

If he wasn't such a jerk, had a better playoff resume, or had either durability or longevity, then there probably wouldn't really be a debate. Those factors make it arguable for some.

Improving Lindros' playoff resume and longevity would make him a different, and better, player though.

I would say that Thornton would have performed at roughly the same level, not that it matters. Lindros was neither great or terrible at the Olympics that year, it was only a small part of his season but it did show some potential growth as he accepted a small role on a team he had captained four years earlier. Obviously Lindros was worse in 2002, no person would argue that. He still had a good season though, and ignoring that season when assessing his legacy as a player is erroneous.

If you want to add that season, it does very, very little in the overall picture of him. I think it hurts his legacy terribly that a team he captained 4 years earlier arguably could have been better without him when he's 28-29. Just hard to see another player like that dropping so quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123

Did you even look at the ranking of PPG guys in the playoffs during Eric's career?

When does being 5th hurt his resume?

Sure he could have a larger body of work but I don't hear you saying that Marty St. Louis playoff resume hurts him either.

It is the volume that you have to look at here. You're going to have a better chance to have a better PPG with less playoff games. But that's not even here nor there on this issue, the problem is Lindros missed a ton of playoff games and he could have done more to solidify his playoff legacy. St. Louis' playoff resume could be better too. He could use more than 68 playoff points to date in my opinion. However, he has a couple things Lindros doesn't have. He has a ring that he was a huge part of and while his best playoff beats Lindros' best his 2nd best also beats Lindros' second best. It is getting harder and harder to put Lindros ahead of St. Louis on an all-time list if he is still there.

Quote:

we don't judge Wayne by not waiting to get drafted, on not winning a cup outside of Edmonton, of not being a great plus minus guy later in his career (and having less impact on his teams winning than we really care to admit sometimes) we judge him mainly on his accomplishments like we should all players.

Unfortunately some tend to focus on what some players could have been instead of what they were and they pull it out inconsistently (ie focus on it for some players but not others).

I'm not sure why Gretzky's name always gets brought up here in this debate. He signed a contract in January of 1979 to stay with the Oilers. Put it this way, they were more than likely going to merge with the NHL but if they didn't Gretzky wouldn't have been in the NHL. Or he would have gone in as soon as the WHA folded. So he was signed to a team on his 18th birthday therefore negating needing to be drafted. It just so happened that Edmonton moved to the NHL the following season. It wasn't uncommon for the WHA to lure underage junior players to play for them by that time. Others did it. Messier, Gartner, etc.

I'm a little confused about Gretzky to be honest. He's a lock cinch HHOFer if you take his years outside of Edmonton. He carried L.A. further than they deserved to have gone in 1993 and even the Rangers in 1997. Two years in a row Gretzky's Kings unseated the Cup champs. I don't understand are you saying he didn't propel the Kings as far as he should have or the Oilers?

Just like GM, Ford etc are business partners in my scenario where they set up an "Entry Draft" for new workers. Does that make it legal in your eyes?

Except that the NHL is not a firm but a joint venture between independent clubs=firms. Players are not assigned to different offices of one firm in the NHL Entry Draft, they are assigned to different firms.

I'm not qualified to give a legal opinion, but I have no idea why you think the legality of entry drafts is in question. In any case your scenario assumes away the meaningful difference. Clearly GM and Ford are competitors, not business partners. Neither has any interest in the other being successful.

On the other hand, North American sports franchises in a league are in an industry where athletic competitions against other franchises is their product. Each franchise must have reasonably competitive opponents for the product to sell in the marketplace. The franchises that make up the league all have an interest in the collective strength of the league. They have collectively bargained with the players association to implement an entry draft.

Therefore Eric Lindros and other would-be NHL players do not get to choose the NHL franchise for which they play. They can play in the NHL as long as they meet the eligibility requirements and follow the rules. Just as they would have to do in any other league, any other sport, or any other industry.

The NHL has a monopoly on elite level hockey in North America, that's limitation enough.

That compares to the assignment of NHL players to farm clubs. I don't have an issue with that. Your example is not comparable to the Entry Draft however. A valid comparison would be an "Entry Draft" held by the 30 top car manufacturers in North America assigning entry-level workers to certain manufacturers. Worker A can only work for Ford, Worker B can only work for GM and so on. Does that sound legal to you?

The preservation of the health care system is in the public interest. Like all young men in my country I was obliged to serve either in the army (for 6 months) or in a social service provider (for 9 months). I had to work in a nursing home and even though it wasn't my choice to serve at all in the first place, I accept that the state can force you to do so for the common good of the people. But only the state (monopoly on the use of force), with private enterprises (like the NHL) it's a different matter. Public interest? The NHL Entry Draft only serves the business interests of NHL franchises and maybe (just maybe) the interests of North American hockey fans. That's not enough to deny employees their rights/freedoms (and we're talking about rights/freedoms here for they are accepted and observed as such in other business and industries).

I have explicitly stated that it's not slavery we're talking about.

i know i said i'd stop talking about this, but i think i've figured out where the logical fault line in your argument lies.

a hockey player does not have an inalienable right to play hockey at the highest level. one: he can play high level hockey in europe if he so chooses. but furthermore, the NHL doesn't have a monopoly, it has merely cornered the marketplace at the highest level. young mike comrie (or whomever else) doesn't like it, he can go play in the AHL, or the ECHL. or he can probably make similar millions playing in omsk.

in your scenario, if ford and GM decided to join forces and any entry level employee entering that conglomerate has to go where the companies want her or him to go, well that employee can go work for chrysler. if chrysler joins the conglomerate too, there are other less high profile auto manufacturers.

the question is about entitlement. and that's why i take issue with talking about "freedom" here. if it truly were the case that the NHL cornered the market on all professional hockey in north america (or just the united states, or just canada), then we have a problem. but there are alternatives. just because those alternatives are not as desirable as the big league, doesn't mean they don't exist. therein lies the legal rub.

a different case would be the one given above about health care in ontario. the province of ontario has a monopoly on the health care system in that province. a doctor with a non-canadian degree that wants to work in, say, toronto has to spend two years (maybe four, but i think it's two) in whatever underserved town the province desires. now in that case, i might be inclined to call it a labour freedom issue (i certainly also see the "public good" side of that argument, but the ontario government is also creating an uneven playing field that possibly unfairly protects its own-- MDs with canadian degrees). but the NHL, not truly a labour freedom issue.

the actual legalities of the NHL as a business enterprise, i can't say. i'm not a lawyer. but i think what you're suggesting is tantamount to saying, "i want a job at x corporation. but i don't want to work where x corporation wants to place me. i am unwilling to work at y corporation, which is an inferior organization and where i can't make maximum money. x corporation is impinging on my freedom."

If you want to add that season, it does very, very little in the overall picture of him. I think it hurts his legacy terribly that a team he captained 4 years earlier arguably could have been better without him when he's 28-29. Just hard to see another player like that dropping so quickly.

That season was just another very good season for Lindros, clearly not his best but definitely beneficial. I have a feeling that if we were just talking about player X instead of Eric Lindros, that kind of season would be far more appreciated.

As far as the Olympics go, it obviously does not hurt his legacy terribly. Would you say the same thing about Bryan Trottier in 1984? Canada performed better in 1984 when Trottier switched to USA at age 28 than they did three years earlier, and Trottier was still healthy too. For what it's worth, I also think that the 1998 team was better than 2002. Lindros was obviously limited by head injuries by that point, and yet he still made the most talented national team in the world. For someone with clear ego issues, he still took on a minor role for the benefit of the team. This is a small benefit for Lindros' legacy, but it is still a benefit.

That season was just another very good season for Lindros, clearly not his best but definitely beneficial. I have a feeling that if we were just talking about player X instead of Eric Lindros, that kind of season would be far more appreciated.

For example, if we were talking about HOFer Cam Neely, that season would have been his fifth highest regular season point total.

As always, the issue with rating Lindros is expectations. A 73 point season is nothing special for what Eric Lindros should have produced. I think we all feel that way. But I don't think he should be kept out of the HOF because of what he should have done, and I would bet he gets inducted within the next five seasons. The other players in his age cohort are coming up for vote now - Niedermayer, Forsberg, Kariya, etc. Lindros will look better against that competition.

If he wasn't such a jerk, had a better playoff resume, or had either durability or longevity, then there probably wouldn't really be a debate. Those factors make it arguable for some.

I know this is veering slightly off topic (although there was a brief mention of John Elway in this thread), but what if I pointed out a player who (to point 1) was a wonderful and dedicated father, husband, and teammate, who (to point 2) was a TREMENDOUS playoff performer who won 2 Championships, appeared in a third Championship Series, but who (to point 3) admittedly played a relatively short time in his sport? The sport is baseball, and that player was Thurman Munson. Hes credited with an 11 year career, although he only had a brief appearance in '69 and obviously didnt play much more than half of '79 before he died (Similarly, Lindros had one whole year missed and there are about 4 seasons you can piece together to bring his total career years from 14 to 11 or so...) Even so, Munson's career was extraordinarliy decorated and productive (he was ROY in '70 and MVP in '76) for its length. He has done things Lindros hasnt (playoff-wise, plus Lindros wasnt ROY), and yet Munson doesnt even get a sniff of the HOF (he has only received more than %10 of the votes once, in 1981).

Point is, off-field goings-on dont necessarily have to have a profound effect one way or the other when it comes to HOF voting processes, irrespective of the career in question. I suppose based upon this one particular example, longevity and durability (Munson was healthy during his career) takes precedence over relative production. On the other hand, Lindros might need to be even MORE attractive statistically to overcome any issues (real or perceived) off ice in the minds of the voters. It is all really very subjective (obviously).

All of this tracks back to that second point, which is that the Hockey Hall of Fame Selection Committee isn't going to penalize players for skating with crap-tastic teams. Which is why Mike Gartner is a Hall of Famer.

mike gartner didn't play for crap-tastic teams. he played on teams that made the playoffs and then underachieved for the vast majority of his career. he played with a guy who placed in the top five in hart voting four times in his career. he was a guy who never led his teams anywhere, and in his first three stops (), his team got much much better in the playoffs soon after he left (washington finally getting out of their division in '90; the north stars getting to the cup finals in '91; the rangers winning the cup in '94). none of his former "crap-tastic teams" ever said, "gee, i wish we still had mike gartner."

and then this:

Quote:

Sure, you can't hold Mats Sundin accountable for a supernatural hex upon the Toronto Maple Leafs, but you can also delay his entrance to the Hall in favor of a player that did drink from the Chalice — looking at you, Dave Andreychuk.

On the other hand, North American sports franchises in a league are in an industry where athletic competitions against other franchises is their product. Each franchise must have reasonably competitive opponents for the product to sell in the marketplace. The franchises that make up the league all have an interest in the collective strength of the league.

True, but the franchises are also competitors...for players. With the Entry Draft the league eliminates this competition among its member clubs with the effect that entry-level players cannot choose which NHL franchise they want to sign with. Obviously that's acceptable under NA laws. In the European Union it would be illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov

i know i said i'd stop talking about this, but i think i've figured out where the logical fault line in your argument lies.

a hockey player does not have an inalienable right to play hockey at the highest level.

Logical fault line...or rather different logics? In the European Union this right you are referring to pretty much exists. More precicely, leagues and clubs in general are not allowed to establish a regime that interfers with the free movement of work(ers). My mistake was that I took this right for granted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov

the question is about entitlement. and that's why i take issue with talking about "freedom" here.

Good for you that you don't live in the EU then.

Speaking of entitlement: Even if I adopt the NA point of view, what was it exactly that Lindros did wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov

...he can go play in the AHL, or the ECHL. or he can probably make similar millions playing in omsk... there are alternatives. just because those alternatives are not as desirable as the big league, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Right. So the NHL tells Lindros: "We want you, but you can only play for Quebec." Lindros says: "I'm not going to play for Quebec, no way." NHL: "Well, then you are not going to play in the NHL." Lindros: "Well, then I'm not going to play in the NHL." The NHL informs Lindros about the terms, Lindros doesn't like it and turns the NHL down. So everything is fine by your logic, right? But then the NHL changes its position: "We would rather have Lindros play for another NHL team than to not have him in the NHL at all. Give him what he wants." Lindros didn't force them with a gun or something. So why blame him now? The NHL thought the alternative - not having Lindros - was not desirable (just like Lindros thought it was not desirable to play for Quebec) and they were ready to make him a better offer to get him. Their choice.

People believe that world-class talents like Lindros are somehow obliged to play in the NHL. The real issue is that Lindros turned the NHL down in the first place because he didn't like the conditions - that's what he was not entitled to do, at least in the minds of many hockey fans. If the NHL calls you follow, like a humble Catholic follows the call of the Holy Roman Church.

I think the writer of the article lost me for good when he favoured Dave Andreychuk getting into the HHOF before Sundin thanks to having a ring. The writer probably forgot that Richards and St. Louis more or less put that ring on Dave's finger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSlater

As far as the Olympics go, it obviously does not hurt his legacy terribly. Would you say the same thing about Bryan Trottier in 1984? Canada performed better in 1984 when Trottier switched to USA at age 28 than they did three years earlier, and Trottier was still healthy too. For what it's worth, I also think that the 1998 team was better than 2002. Lindros was obviously limited by head injuries by that point, and yet he still made the most talented national team in the world. For someone with clear ego issues, he still took on a minor role for the benefit of the team. This is a small benefit for Lindros' legacy, but it is still a benefit.

Well I know that Trottier did an unpopular move in 1984 and one that is puzzling to this day. He'd been in the US a mere 9 years and he chose to play with them in the Canada Cup. It's strange. But there is so much else that Trottier did in his career it gets forgotten. The same would go for Lindros, but the issue here is that we remember him as much as a concussion case and a mama's boy as much as we remember him as a fearless force on the ice and that's not good.

Just a side note, you really thought the 1998 Olympic team was better than the 2002 team? You should explain that.